For The Record 6.21.09: IWC is Happy, WWE is Not
Posted by Kristopher Rodriguez on 06.21.2009
The IWC is euphoric. But if ratings don't improve, things could get ugly.
In my opinion, WWE programming is awesome at the moment. Smackdown, ECW, and WWE Superstars are great wrestling shows. And much of that is due to the outcome of the WWE Draft. Smackdown was given such stars as Rey Mysterio, CM Punk, Chris Jericho, and John Morrison. They have joined Edge and Jeff Hardy to form a modern day version of the Smackdown Six. And if you think Smackdown has a good roster now, it'll be even better when The Undertaker returns.
The same goes for ECW. They may not have the star power of Smackdown or Raw. But they have the right pieces in place to produce quality wrestling matches. Swagger, Christian, Finlay, Kidd, Smith, and Bourne have given fans plenty to cheer about. Even Dreamer, Henry, and Kozlov have performed well since the Draft. ECW is generally well-liked by the persnickety IWC. Some members of that community have even called it the best show around.
WWE Superstars has already given fans a few match of the week bouts… and it's only been around since April. It is a reliable and solid "wrestling" show.
IWC fans are finally getting what they've wanted for years. They're getting wrestling. They're getting long matches. New stars are being built. The main event scene is fluid. The IWC wants parity in wrestling; WWE's Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday night shows are giving it to them.
Smackdown especially has drawn nearly universal acclaim from internet wrestling fans. Every week, the show just keeps getting better and better. The IWC finally seems to be warming up to WWE. However…
There's a problem…
Ratings
Nobody is watching those shows! While Raw has remained consistent since the Draft, WWE's other three "wrestling-oriented" broadcasts have drawn subpar ratings. Smackdown rarely exceeds 2.0, ECW has been trending downward (often below a 1.3), and WWE Superstars consistently scores in the .9 range. Those numbers have to be unsettling for WWE's top brass.
Here's something to keep in mind...
Raw is WWE's "entertainment" program. It reliably draws in the 3's, and occasionally in the 4's. On some weeks, the other three wrestling shows combined struggle to get as many viewers as Raw. Yes, there are many factors that affect ratings. But so far, "wrestling" programming has not delivered. The quality of the shows has improved in the eyes of the IWC. But if WWE judges success by ratings... our favorite wrestling shows have failed miserably.
Does that mean those shows will change? I hope not! But it may only be a matter of time before Smackdown, Superstars, and ECW take on a zanier Raw-like tone.
Bottom line...
If Vince McMahon concludes that "wrestling" doesn't draw, we may see WWE's non-flagship shows go in a different direction.
More Food For Thought
It's kind of funny that ratings fall when the IWC is happy. Should that tell us something?
I know what it tells me: The IWC wants one thing, the general wrestling fanbase wants another. Both groups want drama, but that's the only thing they share in common. The IWC wants the drama to come from wrestling matches. The general wrestling fanbase don't always believe that the best stories are told in a match. They prefer a soap-opera style. They like long promos, backstage segments, and swerves. For them, matches serve a purpose... but only as a means to an end. If a match doesn't serve a storyline purpose, the general fanbase tends to tune out. I've even heard fans bust out the "boring" chants during 4 star matches.
For the IWC fan, a match is usually an end in itself. Matches don't need to advance storylines. That is probably the key, fundamental difference between the IWC and the general wrestling fanbase. The IWC wants the wrestlers to shut up and wrestle, and everyone else wants the opposite.
My final observation: Raw is drawing in viewers, and appealing to a broad fanbase. Shows like Smackdown are drawing in less people, and appealing to a narrow fansbase. Something has to give. And unfortunately, I don't think McMahon will continue to produce IWC-friendly TV if the ratings continue to plummet.
Moving On
Two Quick Memos
Number 1: WWE made the right choice. They had to resume the Triple H-Randy Orton feud. With Batista being knocked out of commission for the next few months, WWE needed someone to take Batista's spot. Some might argue that MVP or John Cena would have been better choices. While I understand that argument, I still think Triple H was their best option. His feud with Orton was never really settled. It makes perfect sense that Triple H would want tend to unfinished business upon his return. This Monday Night's Raw is a good venue for them to duke it out. It'll be a commercial-free show with a pay-per-view atmosphere. And if history is any indication (No Mercy 2007), their Last Man Standing Match could be a Match of the Year Candidate. It seems odd that they'll have another match at The Bash. But that's okay. I'm sure WWE has something unique planned for the pay-per-view.
Number 2: Jim Cornette should save his rants for wrestling. His political diatribe from two weeks ago was witless and vile. Cornette would be well-advised to attain at least a rudimentary understanding of the Constitution before he goes on his tirades.
WWE in Trouble with the SEC?
The Donald Trump storyline is already stirring controversy. Check out what Fox Business is saying:
A Dose of "Machomania"
I'd like to end this article on a light note. Below is a Machomania video. Enjoy.
See what this guy is talking about? Ratings, people, RATINGS.
Since I enjoy all 4 WWE shows, you fans tend to not look at the bottom line. Ratings, attendance and CASUAL fans interest. CASUAL FANS Interest. Apparently, you selfish, immature, greedy, ignorant little nimrods can't understand. You guys don't mean a thing to Vince & Co. So here's a message to you IWC nimrods and to the wrestling magazines: KILL yourselves already dadgummit! Your destroying a lot of fans interest with your negativity. If all of you wake up and smell the freaking coffee, you might just find out what your to this industry. You know how you could make it better: SHUT UP! and kill your internet forums. It don't mean a thing. Remember, Vinny Mac dosen't appeal to you imbesols, he appeals to a wider audience, an audience that dosen't include you nimrods!
Posted By: dcwkmb2009 (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 12:25 AM
Regardless of whether or not WWE is appealing to the broader fanbase, if they alienate their die-hard narrow fanbase (such as IWC nuts like ourselves) they're losing a core audience in favor of one that is fickle and will eventually lose interest anyhow.
I think there are ways of appeasing both crowds, you just need the right performers/wrestlers/superstars/actors/whatever in the proper roles. And obviously WWE needs more "big stars" with big personalities like The Rock, Steve Austin, Hulk Hogan, etc. around. I think we're getting that with Edge, CM Punk, MVP, Miz, Morrison, Jeff Hardy, and hopefully Matt Hardy and Christian (but I admit the last two are just wishful thinking).
I doubt it's all gloom and doom and that Vince is going to change ECW and Smackdown into Raw Lite. The shows obviously cater to different audiences, and when the big stars are ready, they put them on Raw.
Posted By: luna (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 12:32 AM
A happy IWC is an oxymoron. The IWC will always and I mean ALWAYS find something to hate and complain about. God love the Internet
Posted By: Guest#0666 (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 01:05 AM
I hate how spot on this is...
Posted By: Chris (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 01:38 AM
I remember ratings in 97' sucked ass when WWE was producing it's best programming.. it didn't show through for another year.... maybe as the word spreads the quality will bring in more fans... all it takes is for one character to get really hot and boom a spike in the ratings..... I think what they have going with CM Punk at the moment is compelling and could be the catalyst they need.
I PRAY that I'm right because I really don't want this SD run to end its the best wrestling show I've watched in years (that is no hyperbowl).
Posted By: Andrew Barbarash (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 01:39 AM
To the poster above. Posting on an internet wrestling site with the understanding that you are a "smart" wrestling fan, MAKES YOU AN ACTUAL PART OF THE IWC YOURSELF!
Posted By: Guest#6793 (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 01:56 AM
Cornette was on point with his political rant, nothing about it was really fallible.
Posted By: Guest#0084 (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 01:57 AM
You figure that maybe... just MAYBE, the fact that RAW draws so well is not the story lines, but because it's so well known a commodity? What I mean is that it is the most well known wrestling show on television, and draws the biggest ratings because people watch it as a matter of course, out of habit. And also, RAW gets the love from the other WWE shows. Seriously, the other 3 shows are invariably showing more highlights from raw (proportionally) than vice-versa...
Posted By: Ben S (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 02:06 AM
Where have you read that the WHOLE IWC was "HAPPY" ?
Anytime i m seeing a show and wwe ppv report, I see people bitching for any single detail in the WWE Product.....
EPIC FAIL FOR Mr RODRIGUEZ HERE !
Posted By: Epic Fail for K.Rodriguez ! (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 02:39 AM
I think Kevin Greene yelling, "I'm coming hard. I'm coming heavy", is possibly the most homo erotic comment I've ever heard.
Kudos to you Mr. Greene.
Posted By: Peter (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 02:51 AM
Here's a novel idea...trade the entire RAW roster for the entire SMACKDOWN! roster. Let's see what happens, ratings-wise. Or, at least trade the writers and keep the rosters.
Posted By: MissyNEVERWearssocksWithShoes (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 03:00 AM
The Rock and Austin had to be built up into the stars they were. It takes time and ratings will follow - be patient Smackdown fans.
One thing worth noting is that the fan base likes unpredictability - last year when Punk was champ & Raw was without a GM were some of the best ratings the show had in recent times.
Unfortunately Raw now is terribly predictable thanks to the main event scene.
Posted By: Dave (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 03:04 AM
Your claim that Raw is beating all the other shows combined is wrong. You need to remember that Smackdown's numbers are broadcast ratings, as opposed to cable ratings for the rest of the show.
A broadcast ratings point is based on a percent of all TV households, since MyNetwork is shown on local broadcast stations (a 1 rating is equal to 1 percent of all households). Cable ratings are based ONLY on the households that actually HAVE cable, which is a smaller number. So that Big 4.0 cable rating Raw gets is closer to a 3.0 or 2.5 on the broadcast ratings.
Posted By: Craig (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 03:22 AM
Unfortunately, it is true about ratings.
As for HHH-Orton matches, let us look at something more recent than 2007. Let us look at Wrestlemania 25 - you know, the show where everybody busts their ass to do the best they can. How many, IWC or not, liked that match? Another of HHH's Wrestlemania main event gems.
Posted By: Guest#1016 (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 03:30 AM
Raw is the flagship show. No one really cares about Smackdown outside of the internet even though it is good. I don't even get Raw on my TV. I have to watch online and I'm sure there are many others with my problem.
Raw last Monday was really good. There were three awesome matches on a show that usually doesn't have any good matches and the ratings improved.
Posted By: Anonymous (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 04:05 AM
"Cornette would be well-advised to attain at least a rudimentary understanding of the Constitution before he goes on his tirades."
Explain. How did his rant expose his ignorance of the Constitution?
Posted By: Guest#9980 (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 05:47 AM
Smackdown!'s ratings have taken hit from being on MyNetwork and pushing Punk's heel turn is just a really DUMB move. Pushing Jeff Hardy as the number one face on regular duty just seems like a wellness test away from being FUBAR. On the other hand, ECW's been on the decline for sometime now. There are zero stars on that show anymore.
Posted By: WilliamMorgan (Registered) on June 21, 2009 at 06:02 AM
You kinda missed the point, Mr. Rodriguez. You told us what things look like on the surface, but didn't bother to look any deeper.
Let's break it down, shall we? First of all, since when are steady 3s that good of a rating for Raw? It's been steadily dropping to this point over the course of a decade, and to me, that it scores in the 3s regularly is apathy. It's entirely fair to think that a good percentage of the fans that tune in simply do it because it is the "flagship", and most easily accessible, show, regardless of quality. And I don't recall a regular episode scoring a 4.0 or better for the entire show, or even a single hour in a distressingly long time. That 4+ rating for the third hour of the "Three for All" shocked the hell out of me because I honestly couldn't remember the last time it actually happened.
Now for the insane uphill battle Smackdown is fighting:
• Smackdown is on Friday nights, when many people are out.
• It is also on a station that isn't just now falling apart, it already done fell.
• That's not even mentioning the show is regularly preempted in various regions on any given Friday night.
• And if that's not enough, the station isn't even available in some markets.
The fact that Smackdown regularly scores 1/2 or more of Raw's ratings on the joke of a network they're on, in the timeslot they're in, is a minor miracle. The way it's been slowly trending upward in recent weeks seems to me to indicate it's rising due almost entirely to positive word-of mouth. And I do think the IWC as a whole has a fair bit to do with said positive buzz, but that is neither here nor there. Making any change that could hurt the near-universal praise Smackdown is getting the last few weeks is a terrible idea, even if that positive buzz isn't doing anything for it, because I think you are greatly overestimating the appeal of Raw's style.
As for ECW's poor ratings, it's simply an overall lack of star power, being on a genre channel that isn't remotely geared toward wrestling, and still carrying the stigma of being an inferior version of the original ECW. Oh yes, that sentiment will never go away as long as the show is called ECW.
Superstars problems are as follows. It's a very new show, on a network that isn't completely accessible, and it is as much exhibition as anything else. Nothing is ever going to be settled on Superstars. It's a D-show that the bigger stars happen to show up and wrestle on. And while they are doing so ridiculously well, it has that feel of being just another show. It's not due to content, it's do to just being what it is.
Also, while Jim Cornette is undoubtedly tactless and foul-mouthed, he is like a liberal version of our own The Spook, meaning there's a LOT of intelligence and well thought ideas within the cussing.
Posted By: Galaxy Express (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 06:22 AM
See what this guy is talking about? Ratings, people, RATINGS.
Since I enjoy all 4 WWE shows, you fans tend to not look at the bottom line. Ratings, attendance and CASUAL fans interest. CASUAL FANS Interest. Apparently, you selfish, immature, greedy, ignorant little nimrods can't understand. You guys don't mean a thing to Vince & Co. So here's a message to you IWC nimrods and to the wrestling magazines: KILL yourselves already dadgummit! Your destroying a lot of fans interest with your negativity. If all of you wake up and smell the freaking coffee, you might just find out what your to this industry. You know how you could make it better: SHUT UP! and kill your internet forums. It don't mean a thing. Remember, Vinny Mac dosen't appeal to you imbesols, he appeals to a wider audience, an audience that dosen't include you nimrods!
Posted By: dcwkmb2009 (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 12:25 AM
HAHA spastic! I'm not even going to comment on the irony of you complaining about the IWC on an IWC website which you obviously read - but do you understand how revenue works? Ratings dont mean shit to Vinny Mac but to the network he's broadcasting on - so when a shitty network like Sci - Fi or MyNetwork get a 1.1 - 1.3's and 1.6 - 1.7 that's a massive deal for them as it's some of their consistantly highest numbers due to thei smaller viewership - where as USA (Which Raw is on) has a massive audience and therefore a 3.6 - 4.0 is easier to get - and in turn the network pays the WWE based on what they believe they are worth - that means that Vinnies still pocketing big fat checks despite lower ratings so he doesnt give a fuck - only with Raw on the competitive USA is where he constantly wants higher ratings - if say for Smackdown and ECW house shows the gate fell then you're argument would be legit - but it's not so kindly shut the fuck up and learn something before running your yap retard
Posted By: Mister X (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 06:26 AM
Well then the general public is wrong and needs to change.
Posted By: Hobernackle (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 06:43 AM
I think the case is more that RAW is on a Monday night, and is the show most people are accustomed to watching in that timeslot. Every other show is not on the best night really, ESPECIALLY Smackdown...
Interesting read though.
Posted By: Banz (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 06:49 AM
That guy on Fox news is a twat. Trying to pretend that he is too good for wrestling yet he knows about the limo incident, Texas death matches and "pearl harbour jobs". What a loser.
Also anybody who was stupid enough to buy into the Trump angle deserves to lose money.
Posted By: Tim (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 07:02 AM
Wow, a Fox News link! I bet that's totally unbiased and probably full of lies! I mean, it doesn't have scientific data that sets it in stone as the most balanced news network or anything, so therefore it's garbage!
As for the wrestling, spot on. The PG change backs this up along with many other things. You are right and will be proven right.
Posted By: iatg (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 07:43 AM
I dont even get the channel Smackdown is on now. Who does?
Posted By: AG Awesome (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 09:10 AM
The reason RAW gets better ratings than the other shows is because it's live and people haven't read the results online. Also, Friday nights are a horrible time to try get ratings for Smackdown.
Posted By: duh (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 09:58 AM
It's worth remembering that it took over 1 year of solid TV programming in 1997/early 1998 before Raw ratings went back up. Austin was a big focus of Raw in 1997 - imagine if Vince decided that he should stop pushing him because Raw couldn't draw a rating bigger than 3.0. They need to be patient.
Posted By: dragon (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 10:12 AM
because of my erratic work schedule and thanks to hulu. i only watch ecw and sd. i am loving both. the 2nd W in wwe stands for wrestling. those two shows provide that. it takes time to establish new stars. it took 3 years for cena and batista to become main eventers. the wwe brain trust and wwe fans just need to have a little patience.
Posted By: rey (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Is Raw shown on Mondays? If so, the face that Raw is on monday when most people have nothign else to do, might account for the high ratings. Nothing is fighting with Raw for the viewership of the people. As opposed to friday nite smackdown. It's freaking friday! ratings are bound to be lower. Logic?
Posted By: Guest#0454 (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 10:24 AM
I remember ratings in 97' sucked ass when WWE was producing it's best programming.. it didn't show through for another year.... maybe as the word spreads the quality will bring in more fans... all it takes is for one character to get really hot and boom a spike in the ratings..... I think what they have going with CM Punk at the moment is compelling and could be the catalyst they need.
I PRAY that I'm right because I really don't want this SD run to end its the best wrestling show I've watched in years (that is no hyperbowl).
This is spot on, ratings arnt going to jump up all of a sudden, smackdown is going to take some time to click on with certain viewers, the show is awesome & there biggest draw(Taker) is due to come back aswell.
Posted By: jbardo (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 10:30 AM
--------
You figure that maybe... just MAYBE, the fact that RAW draws so well is not the story lines, but because it's so well known a commodity? What I mean is that it is the most well known wrestling show on television, and draws the biggest ratings because people watch it as a matter of course, out of habit.
Posted By: Ben S (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 02:06 AM
--------
True. SmackDown is an established product too, but the constant network-hopping has diluted the audience. MyNetworkTV isn't even available here.
A big problem right now is too much programming. (Which is ironic when wrestling is supposed to be in a down cycle.) Only the hardest of hardcore fans will watch six hours of WWE programming a week.
Sure, the in-ring action has been great. But it creates all sorts of problems down the road.
The fans get desensitized to it. We're getting meaningless **** matches that you forget 30 seconds after the pinfall.
They're exhausting all of the possible matchups. This has been a problem ever since the Monday night wars, when squash matches and anonymous jobbers disappeared. Good luck putting together a feud with two guys we haven't already seen wrestle a dozen times on the undercard. And somebody has to lose these matches. So we get guys being pushed for the uppercard that have jobbed a hundred times in the past year, like Punk, MVP, and Morrison. Even on a relatively fresh show like ECW, every week feels like the same six guys randomly shuffled around to make some matches.
And even the good feuds run out of steam quickly instead of building to a big finish. There's too much repetition. If they aren't repeatedly having long matches with the same competitors, it's repetitive long promos. Thank God for DVR so we can fast forward 20 minutes whenever we see Orton or HHH with a mic. (Wait, those guys are feuding again? Damn, I'm going to wear out my remote.)
Maybe the worst part for WWE is that it devalues the PPVs. When they're hotshotting epic matches on free TV all week every week, what's the point of shelling out $40 for a PPV?
Posted By: Dr Insanity (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 10:39 AM
"A broadcast ratings point is based on a percent of all TV households, since MyNetwork is shown on local broadcast stations (a 1 rating is equal to 1 percent of all households). Cable ratings are based ONLY on the households that actually HAVE cable, which is a smaller number. So that Big 4.0 cable rating Raw gets is closer to a 3.0 or 2.5 on the broadcast ratings."
Umm, no.
A ratings point is 1.145 million homes. Flat. No little calculations that support whatever opinion you're trying to express. A 2.0 is roughly 2.29 million viewers, regardless of what station it's on, or whether it's broadcast or cable.
What you're thinking of is "share", which is the amount of available viewers.
Posted By: Jimbob Jones (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 11:03 AM
good article and it really speaks to something. Now it is my opinion that the WWE is right now trying to please both sets of fans. The casual fan has Raw. Which is realy a variety show with wrestling on it's best days. By that I mean the Mic work is equal to anything in the ring. I accept that. It is n't alwya for me but it is a a tradition in my home to watch it with my kids and text my best friend back and forth. But it has sucked until the last show and the one before. At least they are trying. Samckdown is for the IWC. I can't see how you can have a complaint about that show. Superstars and ECW are like Challenge and Superstars for me. I just like watching a wtrestling match. I think the ratings on Smackdown going down has a lot to do with MyNetwork. There is nothing else on that channel to draw people to even see a commercial to watch it later. I think that is the problem there. Superstars and ECW are fine as is as they have big ratings for the channels and timeslots they have. I really think a shakeup on Raw and letting Smackdown continue to devlop talent and even better let them show it...I think that it will be fine.
Posted By: THE GET SOME KID (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 11:05 AM
I think this article has glossed over some major points. As stated by an earlier comment, Raw is the flagship show and always has been. It has been around so long people do watch it habitually and it is a convenient night of the week. The 'E also try to stack the deck in its favour by putting the "biggest" stars on the live show.
Smackdown has been bounced from Thursday to Friday and from one network to another. I don't think it's realistic for a Friday night show on a small network to be expected to do big ratings. I think McMahon would realise this as well and is probably happy to let that show do something different in hope that it works and he can transfer it to the flagship show.
ECW and Superstars are almost developmental shows so I don't know how much McMahon would care about their ratings.
I do think that the overall point of this article is correct, IWC fans do want something different to casual fans. There is no point McMahon catering to the IWC as we're too small a portion of the fanbase. He's always going to cater his product to the masses as that's where the money is.
Posted By: Purewest (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 11:07 AM
The factor not included here -- the TIME SLOT! If Smackdown was on USA Network on Monday and RAW was on Friday on My Network...I don't think the ratings would be ANY DIFFERENT. I can't motivate myself to watch on Fridays...because it's Friday. Monday is it for me, I'm not wanting to watch on other days of the week.
Posted By: Crimefighter (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Part of the reason SmackDown's ratings are lower is because it is on MyNetwork TV, a channel that is NOT AVAILABLE in some of the major markets and is teetering on the verge of BANKRUPCY. If memory serves me, SmackDown is the ONLY show on MyNetwork TV that is not syndicated reruns and it's future on that channel is cloudy at best. In fact, part of the reason Vince McMahon relaunched WWE Superstars was to open the door with WGN just in case he NEEDED to move SmackDown to another network anytime soon. Once SmackDown is moved to another network we may see some changes, but as long as it stays on MyNetwork TV McMahonagement could probably run RAWs from the Attitude Era in its place or WrestleMania XVII every week and STILL get similar crappy ratings.
Superstars is probably safe because it's one of the B shows, similar to Heat or Velocity a few years ago. It's not really intended to advance any major angles or storylines but rather showcase wrestlers and angles that don't get enough time to stand out on Raw, SmackDown, or ECW. Of course, considering Superstars is still early in its run, in time it may be made up of Kane/Khali squash matches or matches between lower card wrestlers; that doesn't mean there won't be good matches, just expect more of Dolph Ziggler and less of Jeff Hardy.
ECW's ratings have been fairly consistent for the past year or so, and it has become a "B show" to some extent even though it features its own wrestlers, feuds, and titles. By phasing out the ORIGINAL ECW atmosphere back in 2006-2007 and phasing in a more wrestling-oriented style, ECW ALREADY HAD its major shakeup. Yet, at the same time, we all know that McMahonagement views ECW as an inferior brand (since it was Paul Heyman's creation, not Vince McMahon's), and for that reason it's ALWAYS in jeopardy of a major shakeup. In fact, if Vince ever loses his deal with Sci-Fi, I wouldn't be surprised to see ECW phased into RAW and SmackDown with the ECW title becoming another "Hardcore Championship belt" or something.
Posted By: Guest#4823 (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 12:44 PM
"A broadcast ratings point is based on a percent of all TV households, since MyNetwork is shown on local broadcast stations (a 1 rating is equal to 1 percent of all households). Cable ratings are based ONLY on the households that actually HAVE cable, which is a smaller number. So that Big 4.0 cable rating Raw gets is closer to a 3.0 or 2.5 on the broadcast ratings."
"Umm, no.
A ratings point is 1.145 million homes. Flat. No little calculations that support whatever opinion you're trying to express. A 2.0 is roughly 2.29 million viewers, regardless of what station it's on, or whether it's broadcast or cable.
What you're thinking of is "share", which is the amount of available viewers."
Umm...Yes. I work in TV. I know what I'm talking about. A ratings point is 1 percent of your total possible audience. Nielsen lists different ratings for different audiences.
Local TV stations get ratings based on their audiences. By your math, a TV newscast in Bozeman, Montana can get a 1 rating and draw 1.145 million homes, when there aren't even a million homes that can actually watch the station. It's ratings are based on its percentages of Bozeman households only.
Cable is the same way. Yes, cable shows can be measured with Broadcast ratings, but anytime a rating is discussed here on 411, it says "XXX show scored a YYY cable rating." National Cable has a smaller possible audience than National broadcast because not everyone gets cable. All I'm saying is Smackdown is measured differently because its on a broadcast network. Does Raw get more viewers than SD? Yes, But SD's not struggling to match Raw when combined with ECW & Superstars, which is what Kris said in his piece.
And since you brought up Shares, I'll explain that to you too. Shares are a percentage of homes WATCHING TV. Let's say Raw is available in 100 homes. 4 of those homes watch the show (aka 4 percent). Its rating is a 4.0.
However, if there are only 5 of those 100 homes actually turned on and watching TV, Raw's share is 80 (since 4 is 80 percent of 5).
Posted By: Guest#3467 (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 12:45 PM
I'm pretty sure if ECW was presented differently than RAW/Smackdown, it would get higher ratings. They should've had ECW broadcasted from The Arena. Something to make the presentation different. At the least, get the ECW logo back on the lower left instead of the WWE logo.
Posted By: Michael (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 01:24 PM
The problem is that this is a problem Vince created. Vince was the one who trained the average fan to expect 3 minute matches and lots of non-wrestling entertainment. Now that he wants to get back to wrestling a whole generation of fans have no idea what's going on.
Posted By: JD (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 01:42 PM
Well, when I watch a wrestling show, I don't want all these lame promos, all the ranting and raving in the ring. I...WANT...WRESTLING!! This is why, above all, ROH is appealing to me more and more. Ring of Honor only has an hour long show, and you get twice the matches of a two hour WWE show. As for what dcwkmb2009 had to say, if you're going to put down a whole group of people, at least do it with better grammar, and learn to spell, for God's sake. As for the bigger stars of the WWE? Well, let's face it, the best wrestlers the company has are sub-par at best. John Cena, for example. Now, Cena is incredibly entertaining on the microphone, I'll give him that, and he's a class act, no doubt. However, in the ring? I have rarely seen anyone worse. This goes for MANY WWE "superstars." The talented few the WWE has get little or no recognition, and are usually mid-card wrestlers. This just goes to show how little the second W means to the WWE, and how much the E means to both them and the lost, hopeless fans.
Posted By: Angelmci (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 02:14 PM
"For the IWC fan, a match is usually an end in itself. Matches don't need to advance storylines. That is probably the key, fundamental difference between the IWC and the general wrestling fanbase. The IWC wants the wrestlers to shut up and wrestle, and everyone else wants the opposite."
Sorry Kristopher, but this is a false premise. How often do you read an article on this site about classic matches? MOST of them include some context for the feud, including some great promos or vignettes, and other matches. It's not as simple as matches.
Let me use last year's HBK vs Jericho as an example. Did it have great matches? Yes. But the factor that really put it over was the combination of ring work and out of ring work. It's the total package that many IWC members want to see.
Maybe that's the reason the IWC looks so negative? Could it be that we're all looking for perfection?
Posted By: Andy (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 03:18 PM
IMO the biggest problems with Smackdown are the show airs on Friday and it is on a channel that nobody even knows they have. If they moved it to thursdays like they originally had it and put it on a more well known channel, the ratings would definitely rise
Posted By: Jim (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 05:44 PM
Does anyone know what Smackdown's ratings typically were pre-Draft vs. post-Draft? Higher, Lower, or similar to now?
Also, Smackdown has been on Friday's for quite awhile now. It's also been on for 10 years. So trying to use either one of those reasons just seems like desperation to me.
Frankly, I agree with Kris's analysis. Despite the fact I've been watching wrestling for over 15 years, I would classify myself in the general wrestling fan phase he described. Which is probably why, despite how mediocre RAW is now, is not the boredom that is SD for me. Frankly, I find ECW to be their best show at the moment, with a perfect balance of things both the IWC and the genereal fan should like.
Posted By: JLAJRC (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 06:49 PM
I don't think it's a matter of "wrestling versus entertainment" orr IWC versus general fans as much as it is fans can only watch so much wrestling per week before they're tired of it.
Throw in TNA and Ring of Honor for those with HDNet and you're asking fans to keep up with 6 primetime wrestling shows.
I really think the problem is fans are starting to get burned out.
Posted By: Guest#9367 (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 10:08 PM
If Smackdown got the same promotion that Raw got and was on something besides a 4th rate channel, it would have better ratings too.
WWE -wants- Raw to have it's best ratings. Why do you think they get the most matches on PPV? Why do you think we get 4 "Raw Rebound"'s on every other show, and no recaps on Raw (except for more Raw stuff).
Posted By: August (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 10:38 PM
People flip on Raw on monday nights because, for over a decade, monday night has been widely thought of as "wrestling night". It's equivalent to the power of name recognition. Also, if friday night, to you, is also "wrestling night", you are what's known as a LOSER.
That being said, I too love Smackdown.
Posted By: KanyonKreist (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 11:28 PM
maybe if they put smackdown on a station many of us could get. same with superstars
Posted By: ted g (Guest) on June 22, 2009 at 08:09 AM
To Galaxy Express:
PREACH Brother PREACH, for you have all that is good and true on your side!!!!
Posted By: Odin (Guest) on June 22, 2009 at 08:18 AM
If you're going to draw any hard conclusions about ratings, use more complete data. Show me a graph or otherwise convey the trend for each show since the draft. Vaguely saying Raw has higher ratings isn't scientific at all. Many people don't even get SD on its current network, and being on Friday nights hurts it. I can't see Superstars in my market until Sunday morning. The shows are apples and oranges. Comparing them against each other is not a proper way to appraise them.
As for ratings and their relationship with the IWC vs casual fan dynamic, what about PPV's? I often wonder who out there is shelling out $40 every three weeks for WWE PPV's that are mostly glorified TV shows. Is it the casual audience? Are ticket sales to SD tapings low compared to Raw? These would be much better indicators than comparing ratings when SD has never rated well compared to Raw.
Posted By: Shockmaster (Guest) on June 22, 2009 at 01:52 PM
Amazing how the IWC once again misses the big picture: Raw does considerably better than Smackdown in the ratings because it's always a LIVE show. Smackdown doesn't perform on that level because it's a taped show that's frequently fiddled with in post-production. That makes it seem bush league as if their superstars can't be trusted to end a match properly or cut a promo without flubs vs. the pressure on Raw superstars who have a live mic every Monday night.
No matter how hard you try to avoid Smackdown spoilers, many viewers will look at them to see if the show was really worth watching. The element of surprise (already a lost art in wrestling) is non-existent for a taped Smackdown broadcast. Unless you're a huge fan of somebody and you want to see how it plays out, the drama simply won't be there vs. Raw even if Raw's roster and storylines leave a lot to be desired.
Raw could get depleted like Smackdown has in the past to the point where Santino, Chavo Guerrero, Big Show, Mike Knox, and Cody Rhodes are the top guys left and as long as Raw is a live broadcast, it will still outperform Smackdown by leaps and bounds.
You're really thinking too hard about it. This simple explanation says it all.
Posted By: Brad B (Guest) on June 22, 2009 at 05:34 PM
The problem is that this is a problem Vince created. Vince was the one who trained the average fan to expect 3 minute matches and lots of non-wrestling entertainment. Now that he wants to get back to wrestling a whole generation of fans have no idea what's going on.
Posted By: JD (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 01:42 PM
I agree.
Posted By: Guest#1764 (Guest) on June 23, 2009 at 09:20 PM
smackdown might be the best thing going, the problem is that its on Friday and on Hulu (let alone torrent sites before it airs) so why bother staying in and watching it? so while i'm a pleased IWCer, i don't really help with the TV ratings. WWE needs to start looking at more new media (like Hulu and YouTube) to advance storylines and recap what people miss in live events (or house shows, etc)...
Posted By: anon (Guest) on June 24, 2009 at 12:30 PM
Copyright � 2011 411mania.com, LLC. All rights reserved.
Click here for our privacy policy. Please help us serve you better, fill out our survey.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to our terms of use.
